I've said before the British press is much more honest about abortion than the American press. Here's another example, a story in the June 24 Daily Mail that I could find reported by no US mainstream news outlet...
An abortion can triple a woman's risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say....
While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion....
The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer.
The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka.
It is the 4th epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the US showing similar conclusions.
But Cancer Research UK questioned the accuracy of the figures and said women should not be unduly worried.
Dr Kat Arney... said: 'This is a very small study of only 300 women, so there are likely to be statistical errors in a sample of this size....
But the findings prompted accusations that women in Britain are not being properly informed of the dangers of abortion.
Although the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has acknowledged the possibility of an abortion-breast cancer link, most medical professionals in Britain remain unconvinced....
There has been an 80% increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18k to nearly 200k a year.
Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the US National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40%.
That last line must be killing Brinton and NCI.
Meanwhile, ideologically blinded liberal feminists were having none of this. The Jezebel blog posted this photo at their top of its story, which I found interesting, if not unhelpful to its cause...
The claim that abortion causes breast cancer is simply won't die, despite much evidence to the contrary. This week's culprit (of course) is the Daily Mail.
Allow us to consider Simon Caldwell's scare piece point-by-point....
[S]omeone might want to remind Caldwell that correlation does not imply causation. Or that abortions might have been the teensiest bit underreported when they were illegal.
Jezebel posted no other plausible explanation for the seismic rise in breast cancer in Britain since abortion was legalized.
Jezebel also condemned the study for only involving 300 women. But I have a feeling that had Sri Lankan researchers concluded abortion does not raise the risk of breast cancer, Jezebel wouldn't have found that number a problem.
Very, very interesting. The logic behind the a theoretical rise in breast cancer is very sound, so it isn't the least bit suprising to see it actually panning out.
I have reserved judgement on this issue until more studies came in, but it's looking more and more likely that abortion is a definite risk factor for future breast cancer.Posted by: lauren at June 24, 2010 5:24 PM
This is absolutely ridiculous reporting. You're going to blow me off because of my pro-choice bias but, whatever, that doesn't change the facts. This study is SKETCHY; three-hundred participants is not nearly enough to draw a meaningful conclusion, and the study's methodology is not reported/does not seem to be published anywhere accessible. We know nothing about this other than researchers in Sri Lanka observed 300 women and somehow came to this conclusion.
Jezebel may not have delved into what could be causing a rise in breast cancer, but just because they did not offer an alternative does not mean abortion is the only logical answer.
What Jezebel did post, was links to plenty of more reputable studies. For instance, the quote below refers to one done by Oxford University:
"The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies done in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."
This study actually examined the results of many different studies, and looked at over 80,000 women in order to draw conclusions that are much more likely to be representative of the whole population than a tiny 300 person study is.Posted by: Jill G. at June 24, 2010 5:53 PM
I've spoke to many Pro Abortionists on the topic of abortion linking to breast cancer and they call it a trick to scheme women into giving birth to children they don't want. I mourn for my country.Posted by: Carlos at June 24, 2010 6:06 PM
Jill G, about that Oxford study, our side responds (http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf): "More than 90% of the study's post-abortive cases and controls were misclassified as not having had abortions."
It's all about estrogen, Jill. More exposure = greater risk of breast cancer. Pregnancy lowers one's exposure to estrogen. Abortion increases it. Your side, when honest, gets it. For instance, The Monster's Ink blogger today (http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/babies-and-boobies-the-dark-side-of-that-obsession/) first denied then admitted the possibility:
I’m more interested in where this urban legend came from... that’s what we’re dealing with. Someone made sh** up and it took off....
The grain of real science is the increased risk of certain gynecological cancers from having fewer children (or none at all)....
Therefore, I suspect that anti-choicers came up with the “abortion causes breast cancer” meme because if women who procure abortions instead carried those pregnancies to term…well, yes, perhaps they would have a slightly lower risk of breast cancer later in life....
Yep.Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 24, 2010 6:50 PM
Pro-aborts love that National Cancer Society report, which has already been debunked. But pro-aborts prefer to stick their heads in the sand.
Notice she says "evidence to the contrary."
That isn't at all what the NCS says. What the NCS claims is that there is a LACK OF evidence to show ABC. That's not the same as evidence DISproving a link.Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 24, 2010 6:51 PM
If that study doesn't do it for you, a quick google search pulls up a lot of information from Universities and agencies far more reputable than The University of Columbo.
For instance, a Harvard study referenced by The American Cancer Society:
"Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003. Again, because they were asked about childbirths and abortions at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer."
Aside from that, I question the idea that this connection makes sense because "it's all about estrogen." By that logic, simply not being pregnant puts one at greater risk for breast cancer. That means being child-free (by choice, or because of reproductive issues) without having an abortion increases one's risk for developing this cancer, as does having a miscarriage.
Your argument supports the idea that not having children increases one's risk for breast cancer (though I'd bet we'd disagree on how much it increases that risk), but not that ABORTION itself does this.
When you consider how much women's estrogen levels vary naturally, and all of the other factors [like diet, exercise, alcohol, etc.] that can increase one's risk I think scientists would be hard-pressed to design a study that empirically proves abortion is such a HUGE cause of breast cancer.Posted by: Jill G. at June 24, 2010 7:07 PM
It's more than just the estrogen. It's also about the changes that the breasts go through during early pregnancy. Essentailly, during early pregnancy they change from one type of tissue to another. If miscarriage occurs, the body naturally adjusts to the gradual decrease in hormones and the breast tissue becomes close to the pre-pregnancy form and no real damage is done.
However, abortion is the abrupt end to an otherwise normal pregnancy and thus the body does not have the natural steping down of hormones as in a miscarriage. Thus, more of the breast tissue remains of the early pregnancy type, which happens to be the most likely to develop cancer.
If neither miscarriage or abortion occur, this early pregnancy tissue develops into a more mature tissue type that is the least likely to develop cancer. This is also why premature birth can lead to a higher rate of breast cancer since the child is born abruptly and before the body can adjust.
Now, all of this is basically a layman's explanation. Gerard can give you more of the specifics.Posted by: lauren at June 24, 2010 7:18 PM
I always find it amusing that when it comes to the science of abortion-breast cancer link, the abortion-choicers want accuracy and truth, but when it comes to the humanity of the child, they are willing to dance around and avoid the science altogether.
I think the pro-life side would like to see these case studies be entirely accurate as well - at what point does denial serve the interests of women? At what point does "reproductive freedom' become a choice to inflict punishment upon others by denying the truth.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 24, 2010 7:30 PM
Jill G. wrote, "Your argument supports the idea that not having children increases one's risk for breast cancer (though I'd bet we'd disagree on how much it increases that risk), but not that ABORTION itself does this."
Jill, Lauren's right. Abortion exposes women to estrogen they wouldn't be exposed to if pregnant, and it also removes the protection a full-term pregnancy provides of maturing breast cells so estrogen can't cause cancerous changes.
Jill, do you agree that having children decreases the risk of breast cancer and not having children increases the risk?Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 24, 2010 8:36 PM
"I always find it amusing that when it comes to the science of abortion-breast cancer link, the abortion-choicers want accuracy and truth, but when it comes to the humanity of the child, they are willing to dance around and avoid the science altogether."
So true.Posted by: psalm at June 24, 2010 8:39 PM
I wonder..... Is there any support group that encourages women to contact them if they've experienced this abortion-breast cancer link? There may be women reading this blog that would like to share their own experience in order to help get the word out.Posted by: Janet at June 24, 2010 9:37 PM
My daughter does research, in fact she has been published. She says that no one study never gives a final answer or settles an issue once and for all and no reputable researcher will ever claim his/her research does anything more than provide evidence supporting a theory, period. Like the Denmark study which is often cited by abortion advocates as "proof" abortion does not result in breast cancer, the Oxford study only provides evidence in support of the theory abortion does not cause breast cancer, it proves nothing. It is totally irresponsible for anyone or organization to claim the theory of an abortion/breast cancer link has been debunked.
We can only go back and forth with studies. Yes, studies do indeed exist supporting a breast cancer/abortion link. Do women have a right to know this? Absolutely. Should women review the literature and studies on both sides of this issue and make their own determination? Absolutely.Posted by: Mary at June 24, 2010 10:50 PM
I agree with your take on this to an extent. The point I was trying to make was simply that this one study does not prove much, because it was so small and we don't have ready access to the methodology to even assess their methods. This is why I was posting studies that, to me at least, seemed much more thorough, wide-reaching, and authoritative.
I do agree that no one study or even many studies can give us "the answer." I even concede that there is likely a link between the two. However, I don't see any evidence that compels me to believe the link between abortion and breast cancer is anywhere near the "40% increased risk" that this study is claiming.
I think it's important to give women all of the information out there, but it is equally important to ensure that the information we're giving out is based on sound scientific research and I really don't see this study meeting that criteria.Posted by: Jill G. at June 24, 2010 11:15 PM
Jill (Lovely name, by the way :P) -
"Jill, do you agree that having children decreases the risk of breast cancer and not having children increases the risk?"
From my understanding of the situation, yes it does. However, reducing the risk of having breast cancer does not seem like the best reason for having a child to me.
Information like this is helpful, in my opinion, for identifying at-risk populations (in this case, women who have not had a child by the age of thirty seem to be the ones most significantly effected by this link according to what I've read) and making sure they are diligent in their at-home exams, as well as making sure that their doctors are careful to screen often for breast cancer. I don't think this information should be used to pressure women into having children that they don't want to have, however.
However there are other studies, even if you think this one in particular is not credible, that suggest a link.
I certainly agree that what info women are given should be based on sound scientific research. I'm sure you would also agree that it is irresponsible and politically motivated to claim that an ABC link has been disproven.Posted by: Mary at June 24, 2010 11:23 PM
I did suggest several links above. Right now, at least, I tend to believe major organizations like WHO and the ACS that claim current research indicates that abortion does not elevate a woman's risk of developing breast cancer significantly (beyond the already accepted risk that exists for women who haven't had a child by the age of thirty.) I'm not claiming that is has been disproven, all I am claiming this that the research which most of the scientific community (people who understand this much better than I do) believe at the moment indicates a very minimal risk.Posted by: Jill G. at June 24, 2010 11:34 PM
Another factor my daughter points out that should be a red flag is when certain organizations and individuals draw their own conclusions from certain studies. Her favorite is when someone says, "well here's a study that proves what I've said all along...". The organizations you cite may well have their own agendas, and thus look only at the research that supports their bias.
It would be more accurate to say that studies exist providing evidence of an ABC link and others exist providing evidence of no link. No conclusion of any kind can be drawn.
If we go by that logic, though, we'll never be able to come to a conclusion about anything because we'll be too worried about the possible political motivations behind studies to take them seriously... and that's also not what this article is saying at all, which is why I made the comments I did.
From what I have seen the studies that openly publish their methodology, contain a significant sample size, and are endorsed by the majority of the scientific community claim no/minimal connection between breast cancer and abortion and, thus, until I see COMPELLING, well-done research that says otherwise this is what I am going with.
Ultimately, my opinion doesn't matter though - what matters is the people who make the decisions understand this much better than I do.Posted by: Jill G. at June 25, 2010 12:25 AM
Very interesting topic. Actually, it is true; abortion could lead to breast cancer. Stop abortion now.Posted by: Las Vegas Lawyer at June 25, 2010 2:48 AM
Thanks, Jill (yes, I agree, lovely name... :), for answering my question ("Do you agree that having children decreases the risk of breast cancer and not having children increases the risk?")
Jill G. responded: "From my understanding of the situation, yes it does. However, reducing the risk of having breast cancer does not seem like the best reason for having a child to me. Information like this is helpful, in my opinion, for identifying at-risk populations.... I don't think this information should be used to pressure women into having children that they don't want to have, however."
Jill, given your response, you must agree mothers who abort are an "at-risk population" to contract breast cancer.
Jill, I think you understand this now, but you're trying to change the argument. With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether you think women will feel compelled to "have children they don't want to have" if armed with this information. It is a physician's moral duty to relay this information to an abortion-vulnerable mother and let her decide. It is a cancer foundation's moral responsibility to relay the information for preventative means. (Don't have sex if you don't want to risk getting pregnant and expect an abortion would follow - particularly if you're at risk for breast cancer, with a family history, for instance.)Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 25, 2010 6:28 AM
Where conflicting studies and research are concerned and ongoing, one cannot come to a conclusion. The studies I have seen supporting an ABC link are also valid and numerous. The only "conclusion" we can reach is "inconclusive".
As my daughter said, no matter what one study shows, someone will be prepared to counter it and find fault with it, and will. That is why there is never a "conclusion" and no responsible researcher claims there is. Its usually some individual or group who will come their own conclusions based on little more than studies that support personal bias or a political agenda.
Like it or not, political motivation and personal bias are very critical and yes they definitely must be and are considered by researchers and their critics. Human nature being what it is, we have to be very cautious of the "well here's the study that proves what I've said all along...." mentality.Posted by: Mary at June 25, 2010 7:48 AM
Once again, my daughter (2) has successfully identified fetuses as "babies".Posted by: ycw at June 25, 2010 8:52 AM
Of course this is just anecdotal, but you may imagine my surprise at finding myself in the radiology department of my health care provider a few short years after. I was so stunned! I ended up having a lumpectomy (much preferable to losing my breast) which was pretty scary. Even though the abortion had been a few years earlier, I still couldn't get over my fear of health workers, so I endured the surgery under local, not general anesthetic so I could watch and listen (my surgeon was awesome and totally open to what I had to say). Like I say, it's anecdotal, & nobody's business.
I don't buy anything with that Komen ribbon on it anymore since I found out they give some of the money to Planned Barrenhood. Irony is so ironic.Posted by: ninek at June 25, 2010 9:37 AM
Please check out Jill's latest post
Turns out your friends at WHO were promoting abortion death statistics based on "research" that wouldn't be considered acceptable for a high school term paper. However far be it from me to suggest these folks just might have an agenda or personal bias.
The way you are framing this: "Don't have sex if you don't want to risk getting pregnant and expect an abortion would follow - particularly if you're at risk for breast cancer, with a family history, for instance." Is what I disagree with. Women, whether they get pregnant and abort or simply do not get pregnant, are all at an increased risk for breast cancer that would be lessened if they had a child.
It's deceitful to paint the abortion itself as the factor that increases one's risk, when really its the decision not to have a child.Posted by: Jill G. at June 25, 2010 4:52 PM
It seems the pro-choice side always lumps spontaneous and induced abortions together and claim there is no link. The fact that they are combined makes me suspicious. Don't most people call spontaneous abortions miscarriages? If so, why combine the data and classify them all as abortions? What does the data show for induced abortions only?Posted by: Wes at June 25, 2010 4:56 PM
I'd appreciate it if you didn't use such a condescending tone ("your friends at WHO") because I haven't done anything to deserve that, I'm just trying to have a polite conversation. All I was saying was that THIS study was not very trustworthy. I'm sure other studies are and, you're right, I don't know which side is right (but neither do you.) We can agree on that, and then agree to disagree on how this information should be used I suppose.Posted by: Jill G. at June 25, 2010 4:59 PM
A very bad choice of words, my apologies. You said this is an organization you respect. I thought they only proved my point that, yes, people and organizations can pick and choose studies that support their bias, or be very careless about giving out "information" that has no scientific basis.
Jill G, no where have I said I "know" what is right in this debate. I have argued that if anything the findings are inconclusive because there are conflicting studies and counterstudies. Organizations and people draw the conclusions they want, that is my point, and yes personal bias and political agenda are very critical factors that must be considered when "conclusions" are drawn.
I'm sure we would also agree that women have every right to be informed that there is no "conclusion" to this debate, as some organizatons and persons have falsely assured women there is. Women should be fairly and accurately informed concerning both sides of this issue.
Like the debate over the vaccine/autism "link", it will likely go on and people will take sides and disagree. There will never be a final answer, just endless studies that present evidence in support of or opposition to.Posted by: Mary at June 25, 2010 8:28 PM
Jill, It seems to me your debate has moved from disagreeing that abortion is a cause of breast cancer, which I think you now concur (?), to your thinking that this information is being abused.
This is like saying the anti-smoking community, which opposes smoking for a variety of reasons, will abuse the fact that smoking causes cancer for its own agenda. So are we to stop telling people smoking causes cancer?
Every fact in the world is used to support someone's agenda somewhere, Jill. Every newspaper article, every study, every report, every encyclopedia entry. It doesn't make the fact any less factual.
You're apparently suspicious of our motivation for broadcasting this fact, and you'd be right. We oppose abortion, and the fact that abortion causes breast cancer lends credence to our contention that abortion hurts women.
You're also concerned about what women will do with this information. That's warped logic, frankly. Your solution is to keep women ignorant about the ABC link?Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 26, 2010 6:21 AM
There's a Doctor named Chris Kahlenborn, MD who has several articles out on the risk of breast cancer from abortion. (One More Soul-- http://onemoresoul.com/ --has many of these articles available) including: http://onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/breast-cancer-risk-from-abortion.html ).
I find that article breaks things down into easy-to-understand concepts.Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 27, 2010 12:38 AM
It's wrong to tell people that abortion CAUSES breast cancer. (Or throwing out absurd numbers that are complete lies, like a 95% increased risk.) It's just the fact that not having children increases your risk for all cancers in your reproductive organs. Women with more kids have less breast cancer. It's also well-known that women in countries with decent medical care but high birth rates, like Egypt, rarely get ovarian cancer.
I don't know this for sure, but I'm betting women who have abortions have fewer children on average. She obviously didn't want to be a mother at some point, right?
And this is sort of unrelated to abortion, but I get so sick of cancer hysteria. We're basically told EVERYTHING causes cancer: too much of this food, not enough of that food, bottled water, plastic, moderate alcohol use, random "chemicals" in the environment--the list goes on forever. It's insane.Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 27, 2010 8:10 AM
And it seems that if abortion causes breast cancer, you should also avoid getting pregnant because you might have a miscarriage. Wouldn't a miscarriage have the same effect? So it's yet another "damned if you do, damned if you don't, we're all getting cancer" scare tactic.Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 27, 2010 8:26 AM
A miscarriage is a natural event and the body adjusts hormonal levels in advance. A miscarriage, unless it is traumatic, may take days or weeks to occur.
Obviously this is not the case with abortion in which the pregnancy is abruptly ended without the natural processes taking place.
If its wrong to tell women abortion causes cancer then I'm sure you would agree that its equally wrong to assure women that abortion does not cause cancer. Its safest to say that the findings are inconclusive, however women have a right to know there are studies supporting evidence of an ABC link, as well as studies that say there are not.
As I have told Jill G. do not accept any organization's(ACS, WHO) pronouncement that the question of an ABC link existing or not has been settled once and for all. Political agenda and personal bias are critical factors to consider when any organization or person announces that this study or that has settled a question, especially when it is in their favor.
My daughter, who is a researcher, has informed me that NO study is ever the end all/be all that gives the final answer.
It sounds almost like magical thinking to say that the hormonal changes from a miscarriage don't cause cancer, but abortion does.
I really think this is a cause of correlation, not causation. Are there any studies on women who have had abortions simply having fewer children?
One thing I won't mess with, though, is the birth control pill. Synthetic hormones for years, even decades? And people say it's perfectly safe? (And that's not entirely true, since there's a definite link between breast cancer and Pill users who smoke, so it's doing something to your breasts.) No thanks.
I said no such thing. I'm explaining to you how a miscarriage is entirely different from an abortion. Something like the difference between a natural birth and an emergency C-section before the baby is due.
I have no idea if such studies exist, you might want to check out google.
Concerning the Pill, women were assured it was perfectly safe, like they were assured synthetic HRT was perfectly safe. Sound familiar???Posted by: Mary at June 27, 2010 9:56 AM
Yeah, the fact that there's a Pill-breast cancer link in smokers is telling. It's doing something bad to your breasts, and something about smoking accelerates it. And how do we know it doesn't interact with other substances besides tobacco, too? I'm not a doctor, but it's just plain common sense.
The pill also increases the risk of getting HPV, which can also cause cancer. It sounds all-around bad for all of your reproductive organs.Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 27, 2010 10:11 AM
I'm just curious Ashley. Why are you so ready and willing to acknowledge a possible link between BC pills/smoking and breast cancer but not a possible abortion/breast cancer link?
I find it interesting that people go ballistic over any suggestion of an ABC link but have no problem with any other factor, i.e. red meat, obesity, being linked to breast cancer.Posted by: Mary at June 27, 2010 12:27 PM
I don't think the evidence for ABC is that convincing. Honestly. This isn't really about abortion for me, I just get fed up with hearing basically everything you could ever think of causes cancer. I'm a big John Stossel fan, and he did a special on these scare tactics and how there is no cancer epidemic--people are just living long enough to get cancer (there are young cancer patients for sure, but most aren't).
For readers of this blog who want to understand my mindset, things that piss me off are:
1. fear mongering/hysteria
2. extremism on any side
3. throwing out hysterical, yet absurd, claims, like if you ever have an abortion you WILL get breast cancer and die.
Two factors I do think the evidence is in for: smoking, and the Pill. I won't touch either. But hearing about bottled water, lawn chemicals, burnt food, etc? Give me a freaking break. Even if those things might elevate your risk, I'm not living my life in a total bubble, or living in fear, because I might--MIGHT--get sick.Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 27, 2010 12:49 PM
Take a look at the baby faced women on the Susan Komen adds. Some of those women look like they are in their early 20s ...How is it that there is an epidemic of African American women stricken with breast cancer?? Um, it's called abortion. Also, I spoke to 2 women who aborted in their 20s. one woman had 3 and the other had 2. Both were coworkers of mine and they were both dead from breast cancer in their 40s.Posted by: heather at June 27, 2010 3:30 PM
Personal stories speak volumes! Sandy was a great worker. She was fast and energetic. Now she's dead after she found a lump in her breast. She sought immediate treatment and now she's dead.Posted by: heather at June 27, 2010 3:52 PM
Whether you choose to believe or not believe the research showing evidence of an ABC link is your decision. It doesn't lessen the validity of it.
I can choose not to believe the studies that show evidence of a cigarette smoking/respiratory disease link. Doesn't alter the fact that studies exist with evidence that it does.
Again Ashley, no one is saying you will get breast cancer and die if you have an abortion. It is only being pointed out that many valid studies are showing an ABC link.
BTW Ashley, do you get this perturbed when evidence of a possible red meat and obesity link to breast cancer is shown?Posted by: Mary at June 27, 2010 7:14 PM
Tell me Ashley,
Since you have an issue with extremism, is it any less extreme when PA organizations,based only on studies they choose to believe and that support their agenda, assure women there is no ABC link?I'm sure you would at very least consider it irresponsible. Why not honestly tell women the findings are inconclusive?Posted by: Mary at June 27, 2010 7:21 PM
(Apologies for the late response, I caught a 24 hour bug & was out of comission for a bit, but I still wanted to respond.)
"Jill, It seems to me your debate has moved from disagreeing that abortion is a cause of breast cancer, which I think you now concur (?), to your thinking that this information is being abused."
My argument - all along - has been that this study is flawed and there is no proof that abortion can TRIPLE one's breast cancer risk. Abortion can contribute to one's risk in the sense that abortion cuts short a pregnancy and, thus, interrupts the breast-tissue changes but I have yet to be convinced that it is any more risky than simply choosing to not have a child & never being pregnant, or having a miscarriage.
"You're also concerned about what women will do with this information. That's warped logic, frankly. Your solution is to keep women ignorant about the ABC link?"
My solution is to be HONEST and present whatever evidence we have - for every study claiming abortion inflates one's cancer risk to astronomical proportions, there seems to be another saying the opposite. By only focusing on one set of studies (that support your cause) you are perpetuating an incomplete picture & leaving women with misinformation. As a pro-choice activist I would ESPECIALLY want women to be aware of whatever risk they were going through, because I would want them to be able to take whatever precautions are nessecary (like extra breast cancer screening) if they do wind up aborting.
All I want are informed choices, so that women are free to do with their lives and their bodies what they wish, and what is morally right for THEM; and for the record, yes, that means I support more adoption resources and resources for low-income women who want to parent as well. I just feel as if this article (more that Daily Mail writing than your reporting) does not give a full understanding of the current body of research as it stands, and that is what bothers me.Posted by: Jill G. at June 28, 2010 12:48 AM
We can certainly agree that we want women honestly informed. Unfortunately its the PC side that is falsely assuring women there is no risk.
The evidence is there, however inconclusive.
This study may be flawed in your opinion, but others are not. I would refer you to www.abortionbreastcancer.com.
You can see for yourself these valid studies do indeed exist and I'm sure you would agree women have every right to be honestly informed of them.
That's not to say there are not other studies that that don't support the ABC link.
Jill G, my concern is PC organizations or persons falsely reassuring women there is no risk based on nothing more than a particular study that supports their agenda. Absolutely NO responsible researcher ever claims his/her research resolves an issue once and for all. Its only groups and individuals that jump on studies that "support" their personal bias or agenda.Posted by: Mary at June 28, 2010 8:21 AM